The looming debt ceiling vote is already a partisan battle. The President insists he will not debate conditions on raising the ceiling to pay incurred debt. Republicans demand spending cuts as conditions. Circular firing squad forms around economy.
In his weekly radio address on Saturday morning January 5 the President said, "One thing I will not compromise over, is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they've already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again." In a bid to reinforce that message on all fronts, top aides were made available for press interviews in which they reiterated the President's resolve on that issue. President Obama has no intention of allowing the debt ceiling to become a hostage permanently to decisions on other budgetary issues. Congress will not be permitted to create a standard of leveraging the nation's economic standing, perhaps even the world's economy against approval for payment of debt already incurred.
Republicans, having once tasted the power of getting America's debt rating lowered by most international debt rating services (e.g., Standard and Poor, Moody, etc.), rendering it unmarketable to some sovereign debt purchasers and increasing the interest rate to all others, immediately struck back. In their rebuttal to the President's Saturday message, House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R- Mich. said, "Many of our Democrat colleagues just don't seem to get it. Throughout the fiscal cliff discussions, the President and the Democrats who control Washington repeatedly refused to take any meaningful steps to make Washington live within its means. That position is irresponsible and fails to acknowledge what every family in America already knows—when you have no more money in your account and your credit cards are maxed out, then the spending must stop."
On "Morning Joe," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (is he already running for President again?) said that a hard line on tying the ceiling to deficit reduction would be "a dead loser" for the GOP. Wait... what? Yes, that's what he said, and he's not alone. There is dissension in the Republican ranks, with Majority Whip Representative John Cronyn advocating taking the government to full shutdown, while Billy Long, a Missouri TEA Party Republican elected in declared such an idea "impractical" while the country is still fighting, and paying for, two wars.
Obama has declared he will not "play that game again," if the Republican House attempts to get a dollar plus in spending cuts for every dollar in debt limit increase, but newly reelected Speaker Boehner has declared that it is his intent to do exactly that. Whether he can hold the Republicans together in the end as the nation careens into another crisis over paying debt already incurred, or will lose enough of them to an up-or-down vote on a stand-alone ceiling increase bill to get it passed, remains to be seen. He has two months to persuade his outliers. It may not be enough.
What the President has said he will do is tie the debt reduction (not the ceiling) to a more comprehensive tax reform. He may find actual Republican allies on this one. Rep. Camp endorsed a review of the tax code, saying, "I believe in a simple principle. When it comes to the tax code, everyone should play by the same rules. Your tax rate should be determined by what's fair, not who you know in Washington." The devil is in the details, of course, but some Republicans do seem to believe that part of the revenue side of the President's promised "balanced" approach to deficit reduction can be accomplished through revision of the tax code and elimination of special favors built into it. He will not, however, tie any of this to increasing the debt authorization ceiling.
A witching hour approaches. In two months, the ceiling must be increased, the initial "sequestration" amounts from the pre-election ceiling compromise must be dealt with, and a month after that (the end of March) the government runs out of funds for day-to-day operations. The Republicans want to create a grand package of correction to cover all of these together. The President sees too much opportunity to hold each segment hostage to the others. Congress and the President together have fewer than 90 days to come to agreements on all of these. They are going to have to quit behaving as if they are the winners and losers in this contest. The winners and losers are American citizens and businesses; but those stakeholders, while having the only skin in the game, have no say in the outcome... unless, of course, they write, e-mail, fax or call their representatives and senators and make a say for themselves.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 94
As far as your comment about the GOP......They tried to "negotiate all that in the first place" last year. The GOP raised the debt ceiling under the condition that the "Super Committee" would come up with recommendations. It failed. They literally came back and said that they could not come to an agreement.
Harry Reid and Obama both were against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, under Bush.
Obama called it a "leadership failure", and a sign that the U.S. Government could not pay it's bills.
His tantrum about not debating the debt ceiling is reminiscent of the child that whines and whines when their parents tell them they can't afford that childs spending.
This is most analogy is proven by how our President makes no effort to measure if those trillions he is spending being effective or the ways those dollars are being spend providing the value they are claimed to deliver.
Our President only sees everything has political games and how he can score the most points, the cost to the country doesn't enter into his considerations.
His tantrum about not debating the debt ceiling is reminiscent of the child that whines and whines when their parents tell them they can't afford that childs spending.
To the point; I listened to the press confernce in which the quoted statement in this article, was made by the President. Nowhere in the statement did I hear any whining nor any display of a childish trantrum, both of which you have suggested in your posted comment. I would counter suggest, that you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how offensive it may be, but not when you phrase that opinion as being actual fact.
Personally, I found his news conference statement to be straight forward, to the point and unequivocal. He denoted his position on the issue as being not up for debate and made it clear that he would uphold the Constitution where the articles of that document applied to the country's owed debt.
It would appear that you are not aware that the U.S. Constitution states that the national debt must be paid by Congress. As with most detractors of the President, you have an obtuse opinion, but no facts.
How would you describe whining?
For me whining doesn't have to come with a childs scrunched up face or crocodile tears and the actual stamping of feet.
Whining is when a person keeps blaming others for not getting their way. Our President keeps saying he will not debate the debt ceiling, and that he wants unlimited borrowing. He only wants more and more tax dollars and more and more spending. No where has he ever describe how he will actually reduce the current spending or how he will make the spending more effective or anything about programs and government being more efficient.
A whiner is one that says it is my way and nothing else.
"He denoted his position on the issue as being not up for debate and made it clear that he would uphold the Constitution where the articles of that document applied to the country's owed debt." I notice you even point out that he will only uphold the Constitution when it suits him. That sure sounds like a spoiled 'child', not someone that has been taught the rule of law or responsibility to the office or even caring about that nation.
That's ridiculous.
Yeah, & that's what he should've done in his 1st term, and why I almost didn't vote for him the 2nd time around! The Pubs have been playing political games since Day 1 of Obama's Presidency, with little or no concern for consequences on the Americans that votes their a**es into office~how some of these baboons (yeah, a large group of baboons is called a congress) got re-elected is mind-boggling! Call it whining, I call it putting an end to Pub BS!!!
Aside from our President's rhetoric has the government actually had their spending reduced, has he submitted a budget that spending was reduced, has he even made a change to how programs are making their spending more effective or more efficient?
If a person acts one way then he has to have that as his guiding principle. It is analogous to a carpenter (I apologize to the carpenters) if the only use a hammer when they have a problem they will only use the hammer.
Our President only spends never makes the decision that will cut spending on his voters so he only knows how to spend so he will only spend. What you do as a habit will make your attitude and you turn your attitudes into you principles. Our President's underlying principle is to spend, spend, and spend.
That sound like you voted for those in office, since all of them in office have been gaming the system since they were elected then you words belie your voting.
Washington has a dilution and a false sense of pride.
The dilution is that they can fix the economy.
The false pride is that are smart enough to fix it.
At best the government role is to provide the bumpers so the economy doesn't go to the extremes and to be a place to share knowledge all other efforts simply disrupt and distort the workings of the economy.
Our Preisdent is so self inflated he is doing everything he can to control the economy and all he is doing is delaying its recovery and prolonging the economic suffering.
I didn't say "all" of them, nor did I vote for any of the Pub clowns who are wreaking havoc in the Senate or House.
Who do you include in that 'Pub clowns' and who do leave out and do have any examples of how they made it into either group? I ask this so I can better understand who you are talking about and why.
Many politicians like to claim government jobs create private sector jobs similar to the private sector. The only private sector jobs they can contribute is when the governement is buying actual goods and services. Otherwise it is simply a trickle down of the person services those new government employees would pay for.
As for paying what we owe is simply because the government has spent more then they should. People like to claim that government debt is different, it isn't. They borrow other people's money to spend on things they can't affort with available case/revenues, they have to pay it all back with interest, and when the debt gets so large (just like with the private loans) the interest rates will rise on those loans.
As are you, Duane.
Leftists are hoping that there are less and less People like the two of you. It throws a nasty wrench into their idiocy...
I have to agree with you on all points, espcially the last one.
It has become very apparent that they lack the will or the ability to present their reason why they believe differently. I have ask for the principles they base their choices on and they have none to offer, they say I am wrong and I ask why or how and they leave the conversation, I try to talk about effectiveness of how the governement moneys are spent and they run from the conversation. No and then one or more will make personal attacks on those that disagree with them.
They are smart enough, I am afraid it is that they feel unarm when going into a give and take session on what they believe.
In case I wasn't clear... I've no sympathy for Hobby Lobby's owners. If they let their self-righteousness destroy their company and all those jobs, it's on them, not me, and not Obama.
As for Obamacare as a whole... I read in someone's post that by the time it's fully implemented the Insurance Council of America (or whatever they call their industry organization) estimates that more than 100,000 people per year WON'T die, who would have without it. So, you know... not all bad, eh?
Obama's spending has its seeds in the Bush W years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wo9Q3WJHjA
and and excerpt from the speech here:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact
that true individual freedom cannot exist
without economic security and independence.
“Necessitous men are not free men.”[3]
People who are hungry and out of a job are
the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become
accepted as self-evident. We have accepted,
so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which
a new basis of security and prosperity can be
established for all
—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the
industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food
and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products
at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to
trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair
competition and domination by monopolies at home
or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity
to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic
fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security.
And after this war is won we must be prepared
to move forward, in the implementation of these
rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large
part upon how fully these and similar rights have been
carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home
there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.
Pure Leftist Stateist rubbish.
It is truly amazing to watch how far the human mind can twist facts and justify lies and immorality.
Leftist? Absolutely. Stateist? Debatably, I suppose.
Successful? Without a f*cking doubt.
And Corky still lives in Dreamland...
Why is it you cannot make a single post without sounding like a monkey? Always chittering calling names, hissing and spitting like pouff adder ... I think you don't get tired of it because you are computer program running somewhere.
And Corky still lives in Dreamland...
Bruce K. Jan 10, 2013, 6:15am EST
Why is it you cannot make a single post without sounding like a monkey?
Well, Bruce, you gotta go with your strengths, eh? MJK can't use the "intelligent debate" playbook or the "rational actor" playbook.
Some folks never graduate from the playground.
Which is a major reason I have long supported various third parties: intellectual dissent. Mass apathy and herd mentality are extremely expensive stupidities.
I hope they follow the lead of 6 freshmen representatives who in the 90s refused to vote for a budget unless it was a balanced budget, who endured the slings and arrows of Democrats and Republicans alike to force them to balance the federal budget! Like I said I can hope!
The Republicans are a mix of wildly unhinged ideologues who believe in the magic solution, a smattering of people who realize that making the changes necessary to taming the debt and deficit will be hard and require compromise but are afraid to speak candidly in the face of their unhinged colleague's willingness to pander to the delusional.
The deficit cannot be eliminated by spending cuts alone. Many of the spending cuts that conservatives are demanding are extremely damaging to the economy and the well being of people who have paid for the benefits they are entitled to receive.
Spending cuts, particularly on the bloated and inefficient military, along with tax increases for everyone but especially for those with the ability to pay are going to be necessary.
Dreaming of a government "small enough to drown in a bathtub" is not reality, it is whacked.
Yeah, the democrats have never fallen into that trap...
"Conservatives want, and believe in, a magic solution."
The Corkster thinks that spending less than you have is "Magic."
Haahahaahahahaaha!!!!
While there may not be any Republicans currently beating the drum for tax cuts (though your failed presidential candidate from November did run on a platform of tax cuts that would have, again, favoured the rich), for the first time in more than 30 years, you were all prepared to die on the hill of preventing a 3% increase for top earners who are still paying about half what they would have paid during the biggest economic boom in history.
And that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
We have no "revenue" problem, you Revenuer. We have a SPENDING PROBLEM.
See: www. usdebtclock.org
While the details are important, the outcome is really all that matters--as long as people {on both sides} continue to twist the details to suit agendas rather than focus on solutions, we will never get off this merry-go-round of arguments, & stonewalling for the sake of ego, profit & being "right."
Thank you, again, but tin foil hats are irrelevant to the outcome. You think those who are doing "everything in their power to stop or slow down the out of control spending" are "morally justified."
I think they're nothing but a bunch of arrogant, selfish children who feel free to stomp their feet & complain, knowing that the harder they make things for the rest of us the more they'll get what they want for themselves. Have they offered any solutions that will actually address the problem, even if it means sacrificing corporate welfare? Labeling their efforts as some sort of morally justified act to save us from ourselves is ludicrous.
What I object to is sites that present things as something other than what they are. Most people don't know anything about web development, & will take it as face value--as a "real time" representation of the debt. It's intentionally designed to look confusing & overwhelming. To me, that translates to fear-mongering. What we need right now is rational assessment, & to work together--to be concerned, & informed--not to whip people into a frenzy. Passion, & dedication to resolving our problems is good, panic isn't.
If people like to eat and are slightly overwhelmed my this page, then maybe they need to take a brake from less important things and figure out what each of those numbers mean. Having food is more important than most things we occupy our time with. It is not simple, it took me months to understand enough to see that we are far worse than Greece and they can hardly feed them selves. Thus we should expect a similar crash of our economy. So I am good with a little passion, and even some frenzy about how our politicians have enslaved our grand kids with this debt. We have a small window to soften the blow, we have left the cliff, the question is, do you want to deploy the parachute?
There money is everywhere, the casino is open for business.
http://www.swifteconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Laffer-Curve.png
"Laffer curve is a representation of the relationship between possible rates of taxation and the resulting levels of government revenue. It illustrates the concept of taxable income elasticity—i.e., taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation. It postulates that no tax revenue will be raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% and that there must be at least one rate where tax revenue would be a non-zero maximum."
Thus when you find yourself after the start of a recession and the curve shifts to the left while the economy contracts, the maximum revenue point shifts to the left as well. Thus you can cut taxes and increase revenue.
What I really find ironic is that: "Many GOP-leaning states get more in federal funding than they contribute in federal taxes."
That's the point made by a graphic that’s circulating on the Internet, titled "Red State Socialism."
We're talking about people who don't have a child's comprehension of how things work.
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
Barack Obama, At a campaign event in Fargo, ND, July 3, 2008
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”
Harry Reid on Senate Floor, 2006